Ray Kasongo to transfer

#206
#206
Dallasbowlin said:
**** that, I ain't going to that hell hole. Send me to okc lol
Click to expand...

Only you would claim LA is a hell hole but would like OKC. lol. Dude you really need to expand your horizons some. I know you assume that LA is evil because its the big city and OKC is great because its in the "heartland" in your mind. You are aware OKC has some of the worst crime in the country right? The crime rate is way worse than LA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#207
#207
k-town_king said:
Only you would claim LA is a hell hole but would like OKC. lol. Dude you really need to expand your horizons some. I know you assume that LA is evil because its the big city and OKC is great because its in the "heartland" in your mind. You are aware OKC has some of the worst crime in the country right? The crime rate is way worse than LA.
Click to expand...

Maybe per person, but I bet not per square mile.
 
#208
#208
k-town_king said:
Only you would claim LA is a hell hole but would like OKC. lol. Dude you really need to expand your horizons some. I know you assume that LA is evil because its the big city and OKC is great because its in the "heartland" in your mind. You are aware OKC has some of the worst crime in the country right? The crime rate is way worse than LA.
Click to expand...

If I was going to be mentored I'd much rather it be Westbrook than deanglo Russell and nick young 😂
 
#210
#210
k-town_king said:
What? That is literally never a measuring stick anyone uses. OKC is a dangerous pos town.
Click to expand...

There are far more dangerous area to be in in LA than in OKC. The OKC crime stats look worse than LA's mainly because there are far fewer people in OKC.

There are far more people in LA likely to put a cap in your ass just for walking around on the wrong street.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#211
#211
Thunder Good-Oil said:
There are far more dangerous area to be in in LA than in OKC. The OKC crime stats look worse than LA's mainly because there are far fewer people in OKC.

There are far more people in LA likely to put a cap in your ass just for walking around on the wrong street.
Click to expand...

That is not how statistics work. You have a higher chance to experience violence in OKC. Hence the higher crime rate. If OKC had LAs population people would talk about it like Detroit, Baltimore, or Chicago. It has very bad areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#212
#212
k-town_king said:
That is not how statistics work. You have a higher chance to experience violence in OKC. Hence the higher crime rate. If OKC had LAs population people would talk about it like Detroit, Baltimore, or Chicago. It has very bad areas.
Click to expand...

You're just using stats from LA that are diluted relative to OKC because there are fewer people. There's more crime in LA and it's not even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#213
#213
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You're just using stats from LA that are diluted relative to OKC because there are fewer people. There's more crime in LA and it's not even close.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but per capita is really the only relevant factor. I bet Hong Kong has more overall crime than Chicago, but which would you call the safer city?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#220
#220
Thunder Good-Oil said:
There are far more dangerous area to be in in LA than in OKC. The OKC crime stats look worse than LA's mainly because there are far fewer people in OKC.

There are far more people in LA likely to put a cap in your ass just for walking around on the wrong street.
Click to expand...

This is not how statistics work... at all. The only measurements you EVER use for things like this is per capita. This is common knowledge found on the first page of google if you look it up, because otherwise you could never compare cities like NY (8.5 million people) to Nashville (600,000 people.) And your own logic is why population statistics do this. "Crime rates look worse in OKC because there are far fewer people." That means if there were MORE people, there would be MORE crimes, not the other way around.

Further?

L.A. isn't even among the 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S. Knoxville (91) and Chattanooga (77) are though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#221
#221
Daloth said:
This is not how statistics work... at all. The only measurements you EVER use for things like this is per capita. This is common knowledge found on the first page of google if you look it up, because otherwise you could never compare cities like NY (8.5 million people) to Nashville (600,000 people.) And your own logic is why population statistics do this. "Crime rates look worse in OKC because there are far fewer people." That means if there were MORE people, there would be MORE crimes, not the other way around.

Further?

L.A. isn't even among the 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S. Knoxville (91) and Chattanooga (77) are though.
Click to expand...

Duh... that's exactly what it is. A stat because you're around a lot more people. Fewer people in OKC... less likely that if YOU are walking down the street and YOU'RE a victim of a crime.
 
#224
#224
Gotta be pretty dumb to believe stats like that. If you think LA is less dangerous than Knoxville you are a moron.
 
#225
#225
OrangeDog said:
I didn't do well in STATS either. Bless out hearts!
Click to expand...

The stats are skewed simply because YOU'RE considered one person in either place. If YOU are walking around in LA there are 10 to 15x as many people in the CSA... about 19 million versus 1.5 million. Therefore, all other things being equal, YOU are 10 to 15 times as likely to be around a crime. Even if the CRIME RATE is twice as high in OKC, YOU are still 5 to 7.5 times as likely to experience a crime. There are 10 to 15 times as many people committing them in LA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top